If innocent, would a press conference help Terri?

[JBean]

Let's presume for this thread that Terri is innocent.

I've read that she has stayed silent and has not defended herself in a public statement on advice from her attorneys. If I am wrong about that, please correct me.

Assuming innocence and nothing at all to hide..in regard to both the "Murder for Hire" or Kyron's disappearance, I think it's a mistake not to confront some of these issues.

I'd like to hear others' opinions.

I'm thinking , of course, of how the public confrontation of the lies being told about them, began the PR turnabout for the Duke Lacrosse team.

When Dave Evans, surrounded by members of the team, faced the media...the MSM was replete with stories of a vicious beating and gang-rape. They were already convicted...the accuser was even referred to as their "victim" in MSM news stories. (the Raliegh N&O) The other teammates were alleged to be involved in a conspiracy of silence. These kids stood there that day, with family and attorneys and proclaimed their innocence. "You have been told some fantastic lies."

Like Terri, they were receiving death threats; like Terri, the media was aligned against them; Nancy Grace railed about them nightly.

And these kids were up against what N.C. would later call a "rogue prosecutor."

But, unlike Terri, they let the public hear them....see them. They were emphatic in their denials. They faced it all and stood tall.

Why doesn't Terri do this? Why doesn't she come out and tell us that she never tried to have her husband killed nor played any part in Kyron's disappearance? Stand her ground. Tell us that these fantastic lies are keeping her from her Baby K. Tell us how she misses Kyron.

I think it would help her...if innocent. She should have something on record, that years from now, Baby K can see and understand "My Mom faced them all down for me."

Is Terri in worse jeopardy than the Lacrosse kids?

I think if innocent, she should make a public statement.

If guilty, well, then...no, obviously not.

But if innocent, why not call her own press conference?

I wouldn;t hold a press conference for anything if I were her. if I were the target of an investigation there is no chance I would speak publicly,especially if I were innocent.

 

[wondering1]

If I were an innocent TH you wouldn't be able to shut me up. I'd be willing to take the chance of LE convicting a totally innocent person on circumstantial evidence with no body and no crime scene if it meant that my doing something, ANYTHING, could help find my stepson. I wouldn't like that people think I'm a criminal of the worst kind...but many think that anyway. jmoo

 

[Chili Fries]

I meant that it seems apparent (to me) that unless she tells confesses and tells where Kyron is, she's not "cooperating".

I kind of disagree with this. If she hasn't talked with LE since she hired Houze then I'm sure there are some things they've uncovered in the interim they would like to talk to her about.

You were right about the abatement, Calliope, it wasn't decided. I was obviously being snarky anyway because the mental health evaluation rationale was so ridiculous.

I think it was interesting that she showed up at the recent court hearing where her presence was not mandatory. It seemed like she wanted to be seen (the wedding ring was a clue to that).

 

[Tink56]

I wouldn;t hold a press conference for anything if I were her. if I were the target of an investigation there is no chance I would speak publicly,especially if I were innocent.

I agree...and would add, and especially if I were guilty, and wanted to maintain my freedom.

I have also been impressed with the change in Terri after the sexting episode became public. She had already retained Houze for the criminal case. One of the things she supposedly asked MC was to keep their (MC and TH's) meeting private and not tell her attorney.

The one video of her and Houze's assistant in the parking garage, taken after the sexting and MC stuff hit the press, impresses me as viewing someone who has just been given the "facts of the justice system and Houze's limits."

TH disappeared from public view after that incident. IMO that's a direct result of a "come to the maker" meeting with her attorney.

 

[cypress]

I kind of disagree with this. If she hasn't talked with LE since she hired Houze then I'm sure there are some things they've uncovered in the interim they would like to talk to her about.

You were right about the abatement, Calliope, it wasn't decided. I was obviously being snarky anyway because the mental health evaluation rationale was so ridiculous.

I think it was interesting that she showed up at the recent court hearing where her presence was not mandatory. It seemed like she wanted to be seen (the wedding ring was a clue to that).

When Desiree was asked to clarify the ways in which Terri was being uncooperative, she said something along the lines of Terri not contacting LE and giving them the information that would bring Kyron home. In other words, from Desiree's POV, IMHO, Terri has not contacted LE and confessed either what she knows or what she's done.

 

[txsvicki]

Terri won't be giving any press conferences if she listens to her attorney. If she really has done something and Kyron is alive I'm expecting some eventual shocking statements from her attorney and a huge fight to clear her name. If Kyron is deceased then we probably won't hear much at all unless she's charged and then it will be just denials. I think he's probably (hopefully) alive and am just waiting for all the accusations and claims to hit the fan.

 

[cluciano63]

For some reason, I've thought all along that if Terri was involved and Kyron was alive, that he would "reappear" by his birthday. But if he doesn't, then I think it is likely he is dead (assuming she is involved.) I just figured the way Desiree is so sure Terri "hid" him, but that he is alive, that if he was, Terri would figure his birthday would be a good time to end this thing. I wonder if Desiree will be as confident about Kyron being alive if his birthday passes, as did his first day of school.

 

[Melanie]

Personally, I think it's too little too late. As far as I know she hasn't asked to see her daughter, so what she may or may have to say is pretty irrelevant right now. Besides, it would just give K&D more ammo to throw her under the bus....again.

JMO

Mel

 

[bessie]

If I were an innocent TH you wouldn't be able to shut me up. I'd be willing to take the chance of LE convicting a totally innocent person on circumstantial evidence with no body and no crime scene if it meant that my doing something, ANYTHING, could help find my stepson. I wouldn't like that people think I'm a criminal of the worst kind...but many think that anyway. jmoo

You make an excellent point. If Terri is innocent, she's the only one who knows that the real kidnapper/predator/murderer is loose out there, and if there is any chance of saving Kyron and other potential victims, she must convince LE and the world to stop looking at her and search for the real perp. I can't believe that I wouldn't be shouting that from rooftops. I might end up in a straight jacket or locked up somewhere, but there's no way I could keep my mouth shut.

 

[krowdkat]

You make an excellent point. If Terri is innocent, she's the only one who knows that the real kidnapper/predator/murderer is loose out there, and if there is any chance of saving Kyron and other potential victims, she must convince LE and the world to stop looking at her and search for the real perp. I can't believe that I wouldn't be shouting that from rooftops. I might end up in a straight jacket or locked up somewhere, but there's no way I could keep my mouth shut.

I don't get mad very often but when I do, whoa boy! One of my biggest pet peeves in life is being accused of something I didn't do. I have to agree with you. I'd probably go against my lawyers advice and seek every avenue I could to clear myself of any wrongdoing in a child's abduction. I would be talking to anyone who would listen to me to help find a child I knew. Heck, even one I didn't know. Otherwise I wouldn't be here posting under krowdkat. Just sayin'

Great posts, bessie.

 

[cluciano63]

But if she did it...what is it?
And if it was Terri, he has to be somewhere in a 10-mile radius, I think...maybe if searches were going on all the time, on all of those streets LE asked about, she would break down...or try to run. Though I doubt either would happen. I'm just so staggered by this case, it keeps me from sleeping when I should, etc. I wonder if Desiree ever sleeps at all...

 

[GrainneDhu]

But, we are assuming innocence in this thread. So with that as a given, how do you imagine "answering questions on a criminal matter" can hurt her?

These videos have been linked before but I don't think it hurts to link them again:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE[/ame]

One of the hypothetical examples given in the video is of someone the police are questioning in connection with a robbery. This person is factually innocent of the robbery. The person they're questioning says (paraphrased) "I didn't do it. I can prove I was five hours away at the time of the robbery. I was visiting my mother."

For some reason, the police remain suspicious. A witness comes forward, an honest witness who has made an honest mistake: they saw the suspect near the site of the robbery just half an hour before. This witness is mistaken but they honestly believe they saw the suspect.

Now the suspect is in BIG TROUBLE even though they are factually innocent. How much credibility will their own mother have as a witness? Zilch. Less than zilch.

Even though there is no physical evidence linking the factually innocent suspect with the crime scene, that factually innocent suspect now looks guilty as all get out.

If you read the files of the Innocence Project, you will find many exonerated people who were convicted basically on those grounds. Mistaken eyewitness testimony played a role in more than 75% of the cases of prisoners exonerated by DNA testing.

Being factually innocent is no guarantee against a false conviction.

Terri is no more convicted in the eye of the public than the Lacrosse kids. There were rallies with "castrate them!" signs at Duke..."wanted posters" on campus...constant op-eds and editorials presuming guilt. One famous one blared "WE KNOW YOU KNOW!" by the largest newspaper's most well read columnist. And death threats, not just on the Internet. Duke refused to take down their private information with addresses and phone numbers.

That's what those young kids stood up to. And it was the beginning of the idea of possible innocence seeping into the public.

Those young men had a huge advantage going for them: they knew that their DNA would not show up in the rape kit. They were all able to retain good defence lawyers right away. They knew they would be exonerated before they were ever brought to trial.

Which is indeed what happened.

TMH's case is different. She does not, apparently, have a tight alibi for the time in question. A lack of a tight alibi does not equal guilt but it does mean that there is no easy exoneration in sight for her. DNA will probably not be a factor for her, since she lived with Kyron and innocently intermingled DNA from skin cells, sneezing, etc.

Terri is in no worse position than that. Plus she is losing precious time with her Baby. Will Baby K even know her when she finally sees her again?

Why not speak! Counter what Kaine and Desiree have said.

I just don't understand what an innocent person can fear from publicly proclaiming innocence?

First of all, I doubt it would make one little bit of difference if she proclaimed her innocence. Most of the people who are already convinced she is guilty would rip her statement to pieces and it would not do anything to change their minds.

Second, she may not present all that well in public. Some people just don't, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty. If she tends to have darting eyes, a nervous voice, breaks down easily into dry sobs, she would just look really guilty, even if she is innocent.

Finally, Oregon is a death penalty state. While I have no idea who goes on in Mr Houze's mind, I would not be at all surprised if he's planning out strategies for all possible contingencies. The worst case scenario would be that TMH is charged with murder in the first degree and convicted. During the sentencing phase, if TMH ever makes a public statement about her own innocence or asking that Kyron be returned or anything like that, the prosecution will use it as an example of how depraved she is.

Frankly, I don't understand the criticism that all four parents have received for either not speaking out "soon enough" or not speaking out at all. I have yet to see a case that was already getting good media coverage where the parent's words made one bit of difference to the outcome.

I think they did the smart thing from the beginning: they did not saturate the media with appearances, which meant that they were able to keep the media spotlight going for an incredibly long time.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I doubt I'd change your mind, but I believe --- innocent or not --- Terri's going to face charges. Making statements to the press can only hurt her defense.

Added to that, if she faces charges, I suspect Houze will go for a change of venue. His standing in court will be more credible if it is clear that neither he nor his client have tried to do anything to stir up publicity.

In theory, it shouldn't matter; all that should matter is if Houze can show that the potential jury pool is irrevocably tainted.

In reality, I think most judges will give a little benefit of the doubt to a lawyer and client who have made every effort to stay out of the public eye. No one likes a hypocrite and when a lawyer/client duo who have eagerly tried to get as much publicity as possible then try for a change of venue on the grounds of the publicity, well...

 

[Donjeta]

One of the hypothetical examples given in the video is of someone the police are questioning in connection with a robbery. This person is factually innocent of the robbery. The person they're questioning says (paraphrased) "I didn't do it. I can prove I was five hours away at the time of the robbery. I was visiting my mother."

For some reason, the police remain suspicious. A witness comes forward, an honest witness who has made an honest mistake: they saw the suspect near the site of the robbery just half an hour before. This witness is mistaken but they honestly believe they saw the suspect.

Now the suspect is in BIG TROUBLE even though they are factually innocent. How much credibility will their own mother have as a witness? Zilch. Less than zilch.

Even though there is no physical evidence linking the factually innocent suspect with the crime scene, that factually innocent suspect now looks guilty as all get out.

SBM

It appears to me that the damage is done for her in this respect since she's apparently already told them where she was.

JMO and I know it's not admissible in court but the person who refuses to tell where he was during the time of the crime also may look guilty as all get out.

 

[GrainneDhu]

The presumption of innocence doesn't apply in a civil case; only in the criminal courts. To suggest that Terri should give a press conference addressing criminal behavior SHE HAS NOT YET BEEN CHARGED WITH will only be detrimental to her.

Lindy Chamberlin of Australia spoke to the press of her innocence. She was sent to prison for 3 years for killing her daughter. You'll remember her. "A dingo ate my baby." The media played a HUGE part in her conviction.

We've all seen the absolutely incredible and immovable defense of a particularly acerbic talk show host who discusses crimes currently in the news defend and tut tut about the poor beleaguered father of a missing girl, even up to and past the day that same man was arrested on multiple drug trafficking charges.

There is no reason Terri should open herself up to worldwide scrutiny and media attacks from every corner. It will not serve her well, especially if she is innocent, given the current view of even just the two polls on this site which indicates that people (more than 60%) believe her to be guilty, and given that the things in those polls used to convict her are superficial at best (how she looked at the pressers, whether she's said anything, subjective "i've thought so since the beginning".....etc etc.)

It's almost a honey trap: If she's innocent, people say, she has nothing to fear. Only the truly naive believe that. Most everyone believes that whatever she says will be better than the silence FOR THEM, because it will give them more to dissect and disseminate.

BBM

Exactly!

This is also much how I feel about public appeals from distraught parents: it's a circus put on at the expense of the victims to entice fickle public attention. And sadly, there's lot of evidence that if the victim or family aren't middle to upper class white folks, it doesn't matter how much humiliation the parents are put through, they don't get media attention, period.

 

[krowdkat]

In my opinion it's simple...TH is the classic "Peter Principle" in action. She has reached her highest level of ineptness/incompetency and has now hired the most apt and exepensive criminal defense attorney in Oregon to soften her repercussion blow.

If she weren't guilty of something, there really wouldn't be a need for all this. IMHO.

ETA: She hasn't been charged with anything. Why would you go out and find a criminal defense attorney such as Houze?!? I could see it after an indictment, but surely not before. Overkill anyone?!?

 

[ThoughtFox]

In my opinion it's simple...TH is the classic "Peter Principle" in action. She has reached her highest level of ineptness/incompetency and has now hired the most apt and exepensive criminal defense attorney in Oregon to soften her repercussion blow.

If she weren't guilty of something, there really wouldn't be a need for all this. IMHO.

ETA: She hasn't been charged with anything. Why would you go out and find a criminal defense attorney such as Houze?!? I could see it after an indictment, but surely not before. Overkill anyone?!?

Maybe he called her? :angel: High-profile case, lots of controversy - some defense attorneys show up on the doorstep in such circumstances.

I like your "Peter Principal" remark as well - sounds about right to me.

 

[Donjeta]

Hiring Houze may have been a very good idea but IMO it was slightly overkill to appear in a routine hearing where she wasn't expected to testify about a criminal matter or anything else flanked with not one but two attorneys.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Has Kaine said he would trade places with Kyron any day? I'm a parent. I would trade places or take any chance or give my life if it meant either finding that child, or finding justice for him.

SBM

Stmarysmead asked in one of her first posts to this thread: what does an innocent person have to lose by speaking out?

The statement I snipped above is similar to one that helped convict Todd Cameron Willingham... even though he was probably factually innocent.

At the funeral home, a LE officer overheard Willingham as he leaned over the coffin of his eldest daughter and whispered "you're not the one who was supposed to die." This statement was used at trial as evidence that Willingham had set the fire that killed his three young children.

To me, it sounds much more like a simple statement of survivor guilt; he meant that he should have died rather than his daughter.

And that's a real life example of the danger a factually innocent person can run when speaking out. Innocent words can be twisted to mean something that the speaker never intended.

 

[GrainneDhu]

SBM

It appears to me that the damage is done for her in this respect since she's apparently already told them where she was.

JMO and I know it's not admissible in court but the person who refuses to tell where he was during the time of the crime also may look guilty as all get out.

If she makes a public statement outlining her moves that day that differs even in the tiniest detail with what she told LE previously, that would be used in court to impeach her as a witness.

But who actually thinks or speaks the exact same way time after time after time? I know that when I tell an anecdote, the words I use to describe do tend to differ with each telling even though I am telling the truth. For instance, in describing a wound, one time I might say that it looked like raw hamburger, then the next time I might say that it was red and oozing clear fluid. I'm not lying either time, that wound did fit both descriptions.

However, there are many examples of cases where LE or the courts found a witness to be suspicious (or guilty) merely because they changed some small detail of their description.

As to looking guilty, there's a difference between looking guilty to LE and looking guilty in court. In the hypothetical example, LE had no physical evidence linking the suspect to the crime scene. The suspect talks, gives himself an alibi that relies on the word of his own mother and then a witness comes forward that partially contradicts the suspect.

If the suspect had not talked, all LE would have had was an eyewitness who said they saw the suspect near the scene of the crime an hour before the crime was committed. That's probably not enough to convict anyone.

But since the suspect talked, what the prosecutor has is a witness who both places the suspect near the crime scene and makes the suspect look like a liar. Putting Mama on the stand is not going to help because she would have no credibility at all.

All of a sudden, that mistaken witness becomes the hinge on which a conviction can be made. That would not have happened had the suspect chosen to say the simple sentence "I want to consult a lawyer" instead of just coming out with the truth.